The Crazies Won't Shut Up!

[Delldude]

Why was Charlie 'Didn't graduate nuttin' speaking at a university? What academic class or subject can his vast knowledge of, well nothing, bring illumination upon? Asking for a friend.

Tell your friend to look up the first amendment.

An FSU spokesperson said that "As a public institution and member of the State University System, Florida State University has an open campus, and speakers can come to campus to share their views. A speaker’s viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment. The university welcomes the exchange of views as part of the educational process but does not endorse specific speakers or viewpoints."

 

[Delldude]

Perhaps he should exercise that "right" in a more friendly forum.... like a KKK rally.

You're doing a very good job of exposing yourself as supporting censorship of speech from the right.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Tell your friend to look up the first amendment.

An FSU spokesperson said that "As a public institution and member of the State University System, Florida State University has an open campus, and speakers can come to campus to share their views. A speaker’s viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment. The university welcomes the exchange of views as part of the educational process but does not endorse specific speakers or viewpoints."

Thats obfuscation that doesn't answer the question. Why was he there? What course or academic subject can he bring wisdom to?

 

[MagicMike]

Tell your friend to look up the first amendment.

An FSU spokesperson said that "As a public institution and member of the State University System, Florida State University has an open campus, and speakers can come to campus to share their views. A speaker’s viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment. The university welcomes the exchange of views as part of the educational process but does not endorse specific speakers or viewpoints."

Maybe Chip should have tried his speech at Trump University instead.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Perhaps he should exercise that "right" in a more friendly forum.... like a KKK rally.

Perhaps you should realize what freedom of speech is about. Hint, a right by the Constitution.

Debunk that ya fckn clown

 

[Delldude]

Thats obfuscation that doesn't answer the question. Why was he there? What course or academic subject can he bring wisdom to?

He was invited......

 

[Delldude]

Why was he there?

The university welcomes the exchange of views as part of the educational process but does not endorse specific speakers or viewpoints.

 

[MagicMike]

Perhaps you should realize what freedom of speech is about. Hint, a right by the Constitution.

Debunk that ya fckn clown

Exactly!
I am so glad we agree for once.
The patriotic youngsters who shouted down Kirks idiocy were well within their constitutional rights to exercise their freedom of speech!
Good job!
Sometimes it just takes a while for the dawning of understanding to penetrate that blockhead of yours.....but I am always SUPER proud of you whenever you finally do get it.

 

[Delldude]

The patriotic youngsters who shouted down Kirks idiocy were well within their constitutional rights to exercise their freedom of speech!

That is censoring the others freedom of speech.

Mob censorship.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Exactly!
I am so glad we agree for once.
The patriotic youngsters who shouted down Kirks idiocy were well within their constitutional rights to exercise their freedom of speech!
Good job!
Sometimes it just takes a while for the dawning of understanding to penetrate that blockhead of yours.....but I am always SUPER proud of you whenever you finally do get it.

Cripes you're all over the map. Go annoy someone else. You're really stupid

 

[MagicMike]

That is censoring the others freedom of speech.

Not at all. Charlie Kirk is free to go elsewhere and vomit his vile sludge. Unfortunately no one is stopping him.
Good GAWD!
You MAGAts and your never ending, whiny, snowflake victimhood gets tiresome!

 

[Delldude]

Not at all. Charlie Kirk is free to go elsewhere and vomit his vile sludge. Unfortunately no one is stopping him.
Good GAWD!
You MAGAts and your never ending, whiny, snowflake victimhood gets tiresome!

Freedom of speech comes with a right to be heard, not mob censorship.

You're doing a very good job of exposing yourself as supporting censorship of speech from the right.

 

[MagicMike]

Freedom of speech comes with a right to be heard, not mob censorship.


You're doing a very good job of exposing yourself as supporting censorship of speech from the right.

So are you trying to say the MAJORITY of attendees there should not have had a right to freely express themselves?
Pot....meet kettle.

 

[Delldude]

So are you trying to say the MAJORITY of attendees there should not have had a right to freely express themselves?
Pot....meet kettle.

That is not freely expressing themselves, they are denying others their ability to speak freely.

Mob censorship.

 

[MagicMike]

Cripes you're all over the map. Go annoy someone else. You're really stupid

Ok
Fuck off amateur.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Ok
Fuck off amateur.

Now you're just trolling. Do it again and see what happens
.

You're all over the map with your misguided what freedom of speech is. I seriously doubt you know. You're a Fckn idiot

 

[MagicMike]

Now you're just trolling. Do it again and see what happens
.

You're all over the map with your misguided what freedom of speech is. I seriously doubt you know. You're a Fckn idiot

Who's trolling now ya freak?

 

[Delldude]

So are you trying to say the MAJORITY of attendees there should not have had a right to freely express themselves?

That isn't how it works.

Shouting down a speaker to stop an event from proceeding is mob censorship, full stop. It gives the shouters the power to dictate what anyone else is able to say or to hear. The idea that a group — or even a single individual pulling a fire alarm or banging a cowbell — can decide what others can and cannot listen to is incompatible with pluralism. It replaces the free exchange of ideas with a system of “might makes right,” and it is especially egregious for this to happen in the university context where the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to seek out any information is most important.

This is so obvious that, I believe, those who make this argument either do so in bad faith, or have not thought through the implications of this position. For example, no one would argue that one has a right to go to a university orchestra concert and play electric guitar from their seat. It is equally hard to imagine that those sympathetic to shout-downs at Yale and Hastings would make the same argument if, for example, a pro-choice speaker was shut down by rowdy pro-life protestors, or if a student shouted down his professor for the duration of class. And yet all of these examples logically follow from the asserted free speech “right” for some audience members to take over an event.

In each of these cases, a government or university administrator stepping in to stop the individual or mob from dictating what can be said reflects a positive duty to protect freedom of speech. The necessity of free speech, and, in particular, the ability to voice unorthodox and unpopular views on a college campus, is something that I have written about so frequently and at such length, I will attempt to be brief here.
________________________
It’s not just the right to speak that is at issue in these cases. Justice Marshall pointed to a corresponding right to hear in his dissent in Kleindienst v. Mandel:

[T]he right to speak and hear — including the right to inform others and to be informed about public issues — are inextricably part of that process. The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion. The activity of speakers becoming listeners and listeners becoming speakers in the vital interchange of thought is the “means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”

Justice Marshall was not the first to do so. Frederick Douglass wrote about the right to hear following the shout-down of an abolitionist event he organized in Boston 1860 by outraged members of the public:

There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments. Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.

Shouting down speakers is mob censorship: Part 14 of answers to arguments against free speech from Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff

Shouting down a speaker to stop an event from proceeding is mob censorship, full stop. It gives the shouters the power to dictate what anyone else is able to say or to hear.

www.thefire.org

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Who's trolling now ya freak?

Grow up and next time it's on

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel and getting stupid by the minute when it's pointed out

Freedom of speech is a guaranteed constitutional right. Deal with it or STFU already

 

[Independent thinker]

We've already heard all the shit that nitwits like Kirk have to say.
There in no redeeming social value in hate sppech.

Why are you afraid to let people speak? If YOU have heard it all before you could at least let him speak to others. Why not? What are you afraid of?